A New Political Party (Part II)

A New Political Party (Part II)

I wanted to report on some follow-up to A New Political Party, dated February 25, 2005. I checked out the American Reform Party on Google, and found http://americanreform.org. A gentleman active in that organization sent me a link for the New Frontier Coalition (NFC) at http://newfrontiercoalition.org. Here is my note to the gentleman who sent the link:
_________________________________________

Thanks for the link to the NFC site. Here are some quick thoughts after checking out the site and reading your recent correspondence.

The preamble to the NFC constitution is well-worded - more in response to that below. I think that the word coalition, as in New Frontier Coalition or in the ARP Coalition Committee, accurately describes the efforts under way now. I don't think it’s a good word to include in the name of a new third party that registers with the FEC. It implies that the individual parties maintain their identities within the coalition. If we had a parliamentary, proportional representation system like the Europeans or the Israelis, coalitions work fine. Our system doesn't work that way, so a new third party has to have unity built into its name. I don't think people will eagerly vote for a coalition in our system. What starts as a coalition has to coalesce into an organization that can field candidates and win votes.

I think almost half of the electorate is not happy with the existing two parties. Polls have put the independent vote at almost forty percent for some time, but my instinct tells me it's somewhat higher than that. Lincoln and Clinton won the White House with a little over forty percent of the popular vote. A new coalition needs to put together an organization that can win electoral votes in enough states to be credible. The Republicans nominated Fremont in 1856, and took the presidency only four years later. It could happen again.

Before the 2000 election, I wrote an article called "Where Are Candidates People Want?" I thought both candidates were poor at the time, and I don't believe I was the only one. A couple of weeks ago, the same thoughts were there: the two political parties are failing in one of their main jobs, which is to find candidates for office that people actually want. Fifty to sixty percent of the voters count themselves Democrat or Republican. They're happy enough, but the remaining forty to fifty percent are not happy at all with the choice they have on election day. Efforts to unite this group have to be successful.

Every unhappy voter has his or her reasons for dissatisfaction. For me, the war in Iraq gives special urgency to our situation. I wrote about the war a great deal in 2004 (see http://thelastjeffersonian.com/ugly_war.pdf), and the outcome of the November election made me see that we are truly in trouble. I do not want to see us lose our position of leadership in the world, and it's happening right in front of us. The effort to form a coalition is the only practical avenue out. The NFC preamble, with its tone of frustration and urgency, speaks to the mood that many have after the 2004 election.

To appeal to history once more: After one of his many unsuccessful races in the mid-1850s, Lincoln figured he was through with politics, and went back to his law practice. Then the Missouri Compromise came along, with its prospect of slavery in the new territories in the west. This proposal motivated Lincoln to become involved in politics again, and we know what happened after that. The war in Iraq is an event of similar magnitude. It has to motivate people to act, to do something after spending quite a while off the field. Like many, I've grumbled and complained about the two parties for a long time, but I didn't think I could do much about it. The efforts underway to form a new coalition give people like me a lot of hope, and a lot of reason to act.

That's enough for now. I'd like to post this message to the entire group, but it's long and I'm still pretty new. You are welcome to post it when you reply if you'd like. Perhaps it can give others encouragement, as your messages have encouraged me.

Steve


P.S. I agree with your remarks about the Libertarian Party. It is reasonably well organized, state by state, but its members' mental framework is that of a party that will always be small by comparison with others. They would not feel comfortable as part of a large coalition. A third party like the one you've described has to have an outlook that is as inclusive as possible.